原帖由 Maggie 於 2008-2-19 04:13 發表 
2> Re: "為 甚 麼 公 眾 人 物 的 隱 私 受 限 制 呢 ？ 因 為 他 們 從 公 眾 關 注 中 得 到 利 益 ， 基 於 權 利 與 義 務 關 係 的 理 由 ， 也 就 必 然 要 受 限 制"
--- As the nature of the professions, people expect higher moral standard from people such as teachers and church pastors because the are the role model for the people in the area they serve. Of course, some people such as myself do not considered actors and actresses a role model... otherwise, all the "singers" in HK should get a degree in music... or at least pass some kind of standardized exam... Seriously, we expect our doctors, lawyers, accountants, teachers, engineers... even drivers to be educated and well-trained in their field. I am not sure how many people find "singers" like twins skillful singers but sure enough their albums aren't doing bad. I find it more deceiving to have "singers" who can't "sing" (at least not at the PROFESSIONAL level) but are selling CDs than someone was found having a mess up private life. Also, I don't think celebrity will get much 利 益 if 公 眾 關 注 the wrong things... I mean, should 公 眾 人 物 be accountable for the fact that the society in general tend to focus on something that they shouldn't be focusing on? Isn't that part of media's job? Wouldn't the 公 眾 get more 利 益 if they 關 注 more on the economic growth and development of China, or if a disease is spreading rapidly in a country around them?
Maggie, I sort of agree with this point in the article, so I am picking this to reply.
I think that it is somehow right that "他 們 從 公 眾 關 注 中 得 到 利 益". Those professional you mentioned don't get anything from public attention. So, I don't know why you wrote such reply as an arguement to that point.
The only thing I disagree is the wording that is choosen in the article (隱 私 受 限 制), but I do agree with the idea that it brings out. |
發表於 2008-2-19 09:28
| 
